It’s not just the Tory party which has split over last night’s Commons vote on gay marriage. Labour is experiencing a degree of internal turmoil as well.

Yesterday, Graham Taylor, a former chair of Tower Hamlets Labour and an ex-election agent to both Oona King and current Bethnal Green and Bow MP Rushanara Ali, tore up his membership card. It was in protest at Ed Miliband’s decision to allow his MPs a free vote on the issue, something he had been persuaded to do following complaints from, among others, East Ham MP Stephen Timms.

Graham believes this was a betrayal of Labour principles of equality and social justice.

He wrote the following letter to Iain McNicol, Labour’s General Secretary:

Dear Iain

My resignation from the party: Membership number

Today an historic vote took place in Parliament to give same sex couples the right to marry. Not least this is historic because it was tabled by a Conservative led administration and in recent history all advances in social justice and equality have been won by the Labour Party against opposition from the Tories.

I can understand why many Conservative activists and members opposed this measure – it’s in their blood to resist changing anything. What I cannot excuse is why the leadership of The Labour Party, a party that enshrines social justice and equality in its constitution allowed a free vote on this.

I’ve been a party member for 21 years.

I was immensely proud to work on Stephen Twigg’s campaign in 1997 and to be able to vote for an openly gay man to be the first ever Labour MP to represent the constituency I grew up in, Enfield Southgate.

I was immensely proud to campaign for Oona King, in Bethnal Green and Bow, in 2001 and to be her election agent in 2005. One of, then, only two black female MPs.

I was even more proud to help win back Bethnal Green and Bow in 2010 and defeat Respect (a party that thrives on religious and communal prejudice) as election agent for Rushanara Ali, our first Muslim women MP of Bangladeshi origin.

Why did I do all of this?

Unlike so many activists I meet, I’ve no ambition to become a politician. Nor do I hold some sort of outdated notion of building a socialist utopia. I did it because I believe in social justice and equality. And I thought the Labour Party did – these objectives are enshrined in word – in clause 4-2(b) the Labour Party constitution;

1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe and where we live together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

2. To these ends we work for:

(b) a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power and they are enshrined in deed – carried through actions of the great Labour Party social reforming governments of the 40s, 60s and 90s/00s.

Today the Party leadership performed an act of political cowardice in not whipping this vote. A number of Labour MPs walked through the ‘no’ lobby or sat on their hands. One, Stephen Timms, is MP for a near neighbouring constituency to mine. I’ve a number of friends that live there who voted for him in 2010, thinking they were voting for a party that believes in equality – they won’t be voting for him again.

I can no longer claim that the party – and in particular its national leadership – believes in equality and social justice, and it is with regret that I resign my membership forthwith.

Yours truly,

Graham Taylor

Cc:

Baroness King of Bow

Rushanara Ali MP

Jim Fitzpatrick MP

John Biggs AM

Cllr Joshua Peck

Chris Weavers CLP chair

And he issued the following statement today:

Yesterday an historic vote took place in Parliament to give same sex couples the right to marry.

Not least this is historic because it was tabled by a Conservative led administration and in recent history all advances in social justice and equality have been won by the Labour Party against opposition from the Tories.

Unlike so many activists I meet, I’ve no ambition to become a politician. Nor do I hold some sort of outdated notion of building a socialist utopia. I’ve been a Labour movement activist for 25 years because I believe in social justice and equality. And I thought the Labour Party did.

The Party leadership performed an act of political cowardice in not whipping this vote. 38 Labour MPs walked through the ‘no’ lobby or did not vote. One, Stephen Timms, is MP for East Ham. I’ve a number of friends that live there who voted for him in 2010, thinking they were voting for a party that believes in equality – they won’t be voting for him again.

I can no longer claim that the party – and in particular its national leadership – believes in equality and social justice, and it is with regret that I have resigned my membership forthwith.

What a graceless and mean-spirited attack on someone who has acted on his conscience. I wouldn’t resign from the party over this, not least because prejudice manifests in all of us in different ways, but I am certainly not going to attack someone who has worked hard for the party in the past and who has made a decision that is right for him. To make this about cynical considerations of power and who’s up and who’s down says rather more about mccurry’s psychology than it does about the situation at hand.

But Labour didn’t “campaign against it” though, did they? Miliband gave MP’s a free vote on what was surely a “conscience issue” and I believe this is exactly the same as with other gay rights votes held in the past (e.g. under Blair) and you didn’t storm off in a huff then!

Ted, do you know how Rushanara voted? I presume she abstained because to vote for gay marriage would probably result in her being beaten to death by the ‘Muslim Patrol’ the next time she dared set foot in Spitalfields and – worse than that – the IFE/Lutfur gang would label her “pro-gay” and destroy her at the next election?.

Whilst I can understand the sentiment, I think it’s a shame that Graham has decided to leave the party. (I’m also surprised at how seriously Graham takes this given his track record. Gay rights wouldn’t even be on the agenda – in government and civil conversation alike – were it not for Ken Livingstone’s near-lone pioneering in the 1980s, yet Graham’s on record saying he’d rather stick pins in his eyes than campaign for Ken).

I was deeply frustrated with Timms’s stance on this – not least because I like the guy. Yes, he was a Blairite stooge of a minister, yes he voted for Iraq and that is reprehensible. But he was competent and effective as Chief Secretary – and more importantly, he was content to be a cabinet minister and live in Newham and that says a lot.

Dagenham’s finest Jon Cruddas is too good for the area – he lives in Kensington and sends his kids to a rarified school there. I’ve worked in Newham and local people told me they liked Timms because he lived in a normal street, drove a normal car, did his shopping in the same shops they frequented – it’s tragic, but that’s amazing for MPs, let alone cabinet ministers.
And even after getting stabbed by Rushanara, he still holds more surgeries than any other MP.

On this issue, if Stephen’s very religious, that’s absolutely fine. But when having a go at gay people – or any other minority – is open season, he has a responsibility to pick his side very carefully. (Just like Jim F piling in with all his extremist stuff when it’s open season on Muslims.) Why should whether couples are having kids, or whether they’re married matter a jot to Timms? Why do these people care about consummation, or obsess about what sort of sex other people have? Why can’t they mind their own business and get on with their own lives and their own families?

But still, in this country politics is largely between the good guys (Labour – there ain’t no other progressive force in town that can do any good) and the bad guys (the Tories, chipping away at every pillar of society that makes this country what it is). 139 Tory MPs voted against. Some of our MPs were a bit stupid, but the real enemy here is nasty, bigoted, racist, sexist, classist, homophobic Tories – and we can’t afford to splinter now.

Oh and a quick PS: I have no idea whether the vote on the original Civil Partnerships Bill (in 2004) was whipped or a free vote. However, just to clarify for those Newham voters who might have thought that Stephen Timms supported civil partnerships just because the Bill was passed by a Labour government, here is a link to the voting list on Second Reading.

The greatest contribution Livingstone, Benn etc made to the Labour movemnent was to make the Labour Party unelectbale and keep the Tories in power for 18 years.

Splinter? I’m not going anywhere. Read what I said. If the Labour party gets a national leadership i can respect – rather than a bunch of policy wonk middle class kids – I’ll rejoin. I suspect I’ll be waiting a very long time.

Of course it is disappointing that Graham has resigned from the Labour Party. He made a great contribution to the party as an election agent for both Rushnara and Oona.
However on the issue of whether the vote on Gay rights should have been whipped I disagree with him.
Leaving aside the issue of Tower Hamlets Labour’s convoluted understanding of whipped votes, the issue is whether an MP with sincerely held views based on their faith should have been whipped for that vote.
I believe the Shadow Cabinet took the right decision for a number of reasons:
First this is not a Labour sponsored bill but a Tory measure which is being introduced for mainly party political reasons and not for the merits of the policy. This legislation is flawed in that it places different sets of obligations on the Catholic Church than on the C of E.
Second, Labour has a history of recognising individual votes of conscience on legislation of this type. Indeed when the Labour Government introduced Gay rights legislation when it was in power Ruth Kelly who was then an MP voted against.
This is entirely in keeping with the traditions of the Labour Party which sadly Graham and others fail to understand.
It is often stated that the Labour Party was founded by the Trade Unions, but what is not always realised is that the trade unions a hundred years ago contained many people of different religious faiths. Indeed it has often been claimed that Labour owed more to Methodism than to Marxism. We have always been a broad church which is today reflected in Ed Milliband’s promotion of One Nation.
So it is entirely right that whilst the majority of Labour MP’s voted for the bill to allow equal marriage some MP’s including Stephen Timms did not.
The question which Graham’s letter poses is this: If the vote on Equal Marriage had been whipped and MP’s like Stephen Timms had voted against what in Graham’s view should happen to Stephen Timms?
Should he be deselected? That is the logic of Graham’s position. Graham is the one who wants to take the party back to the days of intolerance like the 1980’s.

You either believe in equality or you don’t. As David Lammy put it separate but equal is a fraud.

“a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power”.

There is no wiggle room in the constitution.

Stuart Madewell : “Graham is the one who wants to take the party back to the days of intolerance like the 1980’s”.

And your the one that wants to deliver this party to anti-Semites, homophobes, thieves, turncoats and misogynists.

Thank you for your kind comments Stuart. I was raised a Methodist and fully believe that that is where I get my passion for equality and social justice from. Sadly British Methodist now seem hell-bent on becoming an antisemitic sect, but that’s a discussion for another time.

I’ve said elsewhere and confirm here that I would have had more respect for Timms if he had voted against rather than sat on his hands, He was there, he spoke against (and was beautifully put down by Lyn Brown, his neighbour) he is a coward.

This isn’t about the individual consciences of certain MPs there are always going to be issues where one needs to break the whip – and if you do it regularly for political reasons rather than issues of conscience, – you should face the discipline of the party.

David Lammy is a devout christian, what he said is absolutely spot on..

Weavers is a good Chair but things were more exciting with Graham. Completely understand why he left if we’re not for equality then I’m not sure what we’re about. That said, it would have been nice for him to stick around in the party to support John Biggs’ campaign. He’s probably the best person to run it.

If Labour believes in equality and has such a grip historically on this borough then how come not a single white or black person nor a single woman (of any description) is employed in any of the much vaunted “capital of curry” restaurants which are wholly staffed by men of Bengali heritage, answer me that!

Not having a whipped vote meant that religious Labour MPs were free to try to impose their religious views on everyone else. There was nothing in the bill that would have impinged on freedom of religion. To the contrary – there is an array of ‘safeguards’ in the bill stopping religious organisations having to do anything they don’t want to, and the bill would in fact increase freedom of religion by allowing (most) religious organisations to have gay marriage as part of their religion if they want to.

If people find religions plausible that’s their perogative, but that doesn’t give them the right to tell other people what they may or may not do on that basis. Sometimes this issue is presented as a clash between rights to freedom of religion and freedom to be treated equally but that is patently false because there is no right to oppress other people on the basis of one’s religion.

Gay marriages aren’t compulsory. If people feel their religion is against it, they are free to say no if anyone their same gender proposes. To impose their religious views on everyone else by trying keep discrimination written into the law of the land is unacceptable.

Not whipping the vote sets freedom to discriminate above freedom from discrimination, which is an outrageous and absurd position for a party which purports to hold a free, equal and just society as its aim.

I am sad that Graham has resigned his membership but it is completely understandable. He’s put in a huge amount of work over the years and was very welcoming when I joined. We’ve all got different red lines, and degrees of faith in the leadership to loose. Personally I haven’t considered quitting over this but it’s not compulsory to be a labour party member!

Instinctively I feel it should be a free vote. You can’t tell people how to vote on something that is so clearly a matter of conscience. Sure applying the whip would have given some a get out clause with their constituents. “I had no choice”. I think it is important for constituents to see who their MPs really are – and not what their party makes them be – and a free vote does that.

So what is a conscience vote then, other than an excuse to let MPs impose their religious views on everyone else? Surely every issue an MP votes on ought to weigh on their conscience. But for women’s control of their own bodies, the rights of LGBT people to be treated with equally, these are issues where MPs can disregard the platforms they were elected on, and the principles of the parties that worked to get them elected.

Harvey Milk Jnr is making sweeping judgements about the people I support which are not based on facts.
Stonewall has judged Tower Hamlets Council one of the best Gay friendly boroughs to work in. The Tories continue to pour abuse on Lutfur Rahman yet City Hall under Boris is not a gay friendly organisation and as for the way women are treated his deputy mayor sums up the problem.

I don’t know for certain if Harvey Milk Jnr is a Labour Party member, he could even be a councilor. But given his desire to ‘witch-hunt’ anyone he considers to be homophobic he is definitely a danger to the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets.

Anyone considered to hold religious beliefs is accused of trying to impose them on other people. This kind of intolerance brings the Labour Party into disrepute

How is that weighted? What has this council / administration done regarding community engagement beyond the Mayor taking a photograph with a drag queen? If it’s primarily drawn from council work practices then it says very little about what happens outside of the town hall and how the council deals with that. Stonewall gave an accolade to the council not to the borough as a whole.

“Areas of assessment included the council’s diversity policy, bullying prevention and staff and community engagement”. Indeed.

Clause IV

“A just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power”.

1 ) A just society is not one that promotes segregation.
2 ) You cannot promote equality and act against prejudice whilst denying same sex couples the right to civil marriage. That’s not a false dichotomy it’s a fact.

I would never attack anybody for having a sincere religious belief but where their religion contradicts Labour party values then they are free to join another political party.

@ Jhno

“Instinctively I feel it should be a free vote. You can’t tell people how to vote on something that is so clearly a matter of conscience”.

How is equality a ‘matter of conscience’ ? There is nothing to debate you either believe in equality, believe x and y are equal or you don’t. Being free to discriminate in this context makes you a bigot. That’s fine but do it outside of the Labour party we don’t, or at least shouldn’t indulge those people. MPs aren’t there to promote their own religious standpoints in legislation.

I don’t care where your principles stem from whether it comes from a belief in socialism or your abrahamic background. You should not promote peculiarities of your culture or your religion in the Labour party do it in your own household or your place of worship.

Catholicism of the sort practiced and promoted by say Ruth Kelly a member of Opus dei is in my view incompatible with the Labour Party. She was forever spouting personal religious beliefs in parliament and in cabinet and we shouldn’t stand for it. Many devout Christians and Muslims voted for the Bill Rushanara and Jim for example. Tony Blair was a closet catholic and separated that from his duty as a Labour MP.

Similarly, Tower Hamlets Labour party shouldn’t encourage gender segregated meetings and we do it all the time.

Stuart Madewell : “Why don’t you have the courage of convictions and propose a resolution to the next Labour conference demanding all catholics be expelled from Labour!!!!”.

I’d rather write a letter of complaint to the NEC asking them to investigate you for campaigning against the Labour Party.

Encourage is perhaps the wrong word to use, tolerate and ignore people trying to segregate meetings is probably a better way of describing it. This is something that happens all the time but the best example I can think of was our candidate launch in 2010.

One of our more energetic Cllrs tried to stop a member from segregating women during that meeting which didn’t go down too well with some of his colleagues to put it mildly.

Community meetings are rarely that, they’re essentially meetings of elderly Bengali men and Zenith and Shiria liaise with Bengali women separately. If they’re there at all they’ll be huddled together at the back or in the front for the cameras. The need to get Bengali women involved particularly young bengali women is something the chair rightly picked up on in his report last year.